‘Meddlesome bystanders’ or genuine concern? NGT’s stern warning while reviewing Gwalior iron ore mining project

Observations: Liberal locus, careful scrutiny

• During the hearing, the tribunal examined both the preliminary objection on limitation and the larger environmental concerns raised by the petitioner.
• On locus standi, the bench noted that environmental matters require a liberal interpretation.
• The expression “person aggrieved” in such cases cannot be narrowly confined to immediate landowners.
• The tribunal observed that courts must remain vigilant against frivolous or motivated litigation.
• Regarding the role of expert bodies, the bench acknowledged that the State Expert Appraisal Committee’s (SEAC) deliberations are technical and ordinarily entitled to deference.
• However, it clarified that expert recommendations are not immune to judicial review if there is credible material suggesting a violation of statutory provisions or the suppression of relevant facts.

Project: Mining in Santau

• The appeal was filed by Surjeet Singh against the environmental clearance dated May 22, 2024, issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (MP SEIAA) in favour of one Kunwar Rani Ayodhya Singh.
• The clearance permits iron ore mining in 10.718 hectares in Santau village.
• According to the record, the project involves open-cast, semi-mechanised mining with a production capacity of 1,13,299 tonnes per year.
• The mining lease was originally sanctioned decades ago and later renewed by the state government through an order dated January 31, 2020, extending its validity from January 13, 1982, up to January 12, 2032.
• Following this, Terms of Reference (ToR) were issued on August 10, 2023.
• A public hearing was conducted on October 5, 2023.
• The environmental clearance application was submitted online on November 21, 2023.
• The SEAC considered the proposal in its 738th meeting on April 22, 2024.
• The SEIAA approved the project in its 849th meeting on May 14, 2024.
• The final environmental clearance was issued on May 22, 2024.
• However, the environmental clearance came with significant restrictions.
• The SEIAA limited actual mining operations to 4.10 hectares out of the total lease area.
• It mandated a 25-metre “no mining zone” along the forest boundary, prohibited blasting, required compensatory plantation for 47 trees proposed to be felled, and directed that natural drainage systems must not be disturbed.
• These conditions, the authorities argued, were imposed precisely because of the environmental sensitivity of the area.

Petitioner’s case

• Counsel for the appellant argued that the land in question either qualifies as forest under the law or lies within 250 metres of forest boundaries, making mining impermissible under state circulars and Supreme Court directions.
• The petitioner relied on a joint list dated May 7, 2002, submitted by the collector and divisional forest officer (DFO), Gwalior, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s December 12, 1996, order in the T N Godavarman case.
• A forest department order dated October 7, 2002, directed that no mining lease shall be granted within 250 metres of forest land.
• A clarificatory circular dated January 22, 2009, stated that these restrictions must also be considered at the stage of renewal of earlier mining leases.
• The petitioner contended that survey numbers 361 and 378 contain “Chhota Bada Jhad Ka Jangal (small and big shrub forest)”, while survey number 337 falls within 250 metres of forest boundaries.
• He further alleged that despite a 2012 committee headed by the divisional commissioner noting forest proximity, the mining officer issued an “Ekal Praman Patra (single certificate)” on April 27, 2023, stating that no approval from the divisional level forest committee was required.
• “This certificate conveniently omits the fact that the land falls within forest proximity and answers the definition of forest,” the counsel submitted, alleging suppression of material facts before the SEIAA.
• The petitioner also rejected the argument that he lacks locus standi.
• Environmental degradation, he argued, affects society at large.
• Citing earlier NGT and Supreme Court judgments, he maintained that any concerned citizen can approach the tribunal to prevent ecological harm.

Respondents’ stand

• The project proponent and SEIAA raised strong preliminary objections.
• First, they argued that the appeal is barred by limitation.
• Under Section 16 of the NGT Act, an appeal must be filed within 30 days of communication of the order.
• The environmental clearance was issued on May 22, 2024, but the appeal was filed on July 24, 2024 – 62 days later, without any application for condonation of delay.
• “This appeal is hopelessly time-barred,” the counsel for the SEIAA submitted.
• On merits, the respondents contended that the land is not recorded as forest in revenue records.
• It does not meet the criterion of 200 trees per hectare, as per the revenue department circular dated January 13, 1997.
• A forest department report dated September 5, 2016 confirmed that the land does not satisfy the definition of forest.
• The mining lease lies 4.5 kilometres away from the eco-sensitive zone of the Ghatigaon Hukana/Son Ghariyal Wildlife Sanctuary.
• All statutory approvals, including Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) approval of the mining plan (July 1, 2022), gram panchayat’s no-objection certificate (NOC dated January 24, 2023), and consent to establish (July 16, 2024) were duly obtained.
• The respondents also stressed that the SEAC, a technical expert body, scrutinised the environmental impact assessment (EIA), mining plan, and other documents in detail during its 738th meeting before recommending the project for clearance.
• “Once an expert body has applied its mind and imposed safeguards, the decision should not be lightly interfered with,” the counsel argued, relying on Supreme Court precedents that call for judicial restraint in technical environmental matters.

Larger question: Mining versus forest protection

• The case highlights a recurring tension in mineral-rich districts like Gwalior – how to balance economic development through mining with forest conservation and ecological safeguards.
• If the tribunal ultimately finds that the lease area falls within or too close to forest land under applicable norms, it could have significant implications for similar legacy mining leases renewed after forest protection circulars were issued.
• For now, the environmental clearance dated May 22, 2024, remains under judicial examination, with the tribunal weighing questions of limitation, forest classification, procedural compliance, and the scope of environmental oversight.

Sumit is an intern with The Indian Express.